《返身三次方》
參展藝術(shù)家：龐永杰 張淳 馬軻
展覽策劃：時斌
學(xué)術(shù)支持：孫磊
主辦：夸克藝術(shù)空間
協(xié)辦：左右畫廊
展覽時間：2008年4月12日- 2008年5月16日
開幕酒會：2008年4月12日 下午3:00
展覽地點(diǎn)：夸克藝術(shù)空間（798藝術(shù)區(qū)A05-0-3)
電話：64360837
網(wǎng)址：www.quacart.com
郵箱：quacart@yahoo.com.cn
《Returning Cube》
Artist: Pang Yongjie Zhangchun Ma Ke
Curator: Shi Bin
Academic support: Sun Lei
Organizer: Quac Art Space
Co-organizer: L&R Gallery
Exhibition Date: April 12, 2008 ~ May 16, 2008
Opening Reception: 3pm,4.12
Exhibition Add: Quac Art Space , 798 Art District A05-0-3
Tel: (+8610) 64360837
Website: www.quacart.com
E-mail: quacart@yahoo.com.cn
龐永杰作品
返身三次方——龐永杰、馬軻、張淳作品展
孫磊
在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)語境中，對藝術(shù)現(xiàn)象及其相關(guān)藝術(shù)和藝術(shù)家形態(tài)的批判是相對泛化的，它并不能形成像人文知識分子對社會、人性等界面的質(zhì)疑那樣對藝術(shù)界面進(jìn)行質(zhì)疑，往往因?yàn)檫^分的喧嚷成為金錢或利益驅(qū)使的奴隸。那么，從這樣的時代境況中返身實(shí)際上是從藝術(shù)的表層返身入藝術(shù)的深層，它意味著某種對當(dāng)代藝術(shù)的在場性疏離與拒斥，意味著某種對自身內(nèi)在表述力的篤定判斷，意味著一種“慢和單純”，意味著注重現(xiàn)實(shí)話語的根性活力及生發(fā)性能量。龐永杰、馬軻、張淳作為三個個案，在三個不同向度上為我們展示了他們既有互文性又各自獨(dú)立的返身姿態(tài)。
龐永杰的返身是指向精神層面的。他在博大的東方精神中認(rèn)領(lǐng)出積極、空靈、豐滿的部分因子，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化成一種質(zhì)樸的透徹。因此他作品呈現(xiàn)出的簡潔與專注就必然形成一種直觀的精神拷問，從而與今天藝術(shù)的普世狂歡構(gòu)成一種自然的距離。
馬軻的返身是指向生存層面的。無疑這樣的方式常常會引來有關(guān)人性、道德等方面的判斷，但他執(zhí)意進(jìn)入生命與生活內(nèi)部的表達(dá)并不拒絕諸如此類的理解，他已經(jīng)把自身的生存經(jīng)驗(yàn)與藝術(shù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)強(qiáng)化到某中孤絕的境地，其目的就是為了讓人恢復(fù)到一種真實(shí)的生命狀態(tài)。
張淳的返身指向語言。在他那里，語言成為根基不僅僅存在于表達(dá)過程中，而且存在于對思維的突破、對自由的實(shí)現(xiàn)以及對生活的體驗(yàn)中，那些瑣碎的斑點(diǎn)式圖象是語言對世界表象的更正，是一種具有“手工”性質(zhì)的強(qiáng)大闡釋力。
巧合的是他們都是山東人，相同的地域性身份也許為他們提供了類似的養(yǎng)料，但他們各自不同的藝術(shù)特征已經(jīng)為今天的藝術(shù)提供了更為深在的表述案例。無論是返身于對精神具體切實(shí)的追索，還是返身于對生存獨(dú)立而隱喻般的觀照，或者是返身于對語言深入細(xì)微的探究，都標(biāo)識出一種當(dāng)代藝術(shù)本位建設(shè)的可能向度與途徑。因而返身不是返回，而是反證；不是出位，而是在場；不是宏觀的退縮，而是微觀的前進(jìn)。當(dāng)然，我們無意以價值判斷的方式為他們堅(jiān)實(shí)的實(shí)踐進(jìn)行喝彩或呼告，但至少，我們的努力已經(jīng)初露微光了。
Returning Cube
——Works Exhibition of Pang Yongjie, Ma Ke and Zhang Chun
By Sun Lei
Under the contemporary art context, the criticism against artistic phenomena and correlated modality of art and artists is comparatively general, and it’s not as critical as that against society and human nature by human intellectuals, but always becomes slave driven by money and interest as a result of overladen vociferation.
Then returning back from plight in such times actually is rising from the artificial level to the level of depth in art. It means alienation and refusal of the on-the-spot contemporary art; it means serious estimation of the interior ability for formulation; it means being “slow and pure”; and it means great importance has been attached to the energy and capability of developing in practical dialogue.
The three cases of Pang Yongjie, Ma Ke and Zhang Chun expose the echoing and yet independent returning attitudes from three different dimensions.
The returning of Pang Yongjie indicates the spiritual level. He extinguishes part of the elements which are of positive, vacant and profuse in the broad Eastern spirit, and turn them into a kind of pristine transparency. Therefore the concision and concentration presented in his works is necessarily an intuitionistic spiritual excruciation, thus forms a natural distance with the world today full of spree.
The returning of Ma Ke indicates the level of existence. Undoubtedly this manner will usually arouse judges on human natures and morals, and his expression that determined to enter the interior expression in life and living doesn’t reject this kind of understanding. He has intensified his experience in living and art to an extent of solitude and the purpose is to make people come back to a true state of life.
The returning of Zhang Chun indicates the language. In his world, language becoming root and base doesn’t only exist in the process of expressing, but also in the breaking through of thinking, in the realization of freedom and in the experience of life. Those images of petty spots are correction of the world’s superficial looks by language, and also strong power of explanation that has the nature of “handcraft”.
Coincidently they are all from Shan Dong. The same regional ID provides them with similar nourishment, but their respective art characteristics just offer deeper cases of formulation for today’s art. No matter the returning is about the practical pursuit of spirit or an independent reflection of metaphor upon existence, or the deep and careful research on language, it marks a possible dimension and method of the construction of standard in contemporary art.
Therefore, returning is not backtracking, but disproval, not out of the way, but on the spot; not macro flinching, but micro advancing. Of course we are not intended to applause them for their solid practice in the way of valuation, but at least, our efforts are beginning to gain some effect.
|
